Cancer center ads more emotional than informative

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Television and magazine
advertisements from cancer centers often tug at people's
heartstrings, but rarely provide information needed to make a
decision about cancer treatment, says a new study.

"I think there is a concern in general and among some
physicians that advertising may be creating some inappropriate
demand for services or providing unrealistic expectations," Dr.
Yael Schenker, the study's senior author from the University of
Pittsburgh, said.

She and her colleagues write in the Annals of Internal
Medicine that most cancer centers in the U.S. use ads to tell
people about their services, but there has been little research
on the content of those messages.

"These ads are common," Schenker said. "They're hard not to
notice."

A Reuters special report found that some cancer centers may
skew their survival data to suggest superior outcomes in
information shown to prospective patients (see Reuters Special
Report of March 6, 2013 here: http://reut.rs/VFhuli.)

To analyze the advertising that may attract those patients
to begin with, Schenker and her colleagues used a media
monitoring service to find ads for cancer centers that ran in
major magazines and on television networks during 2012.

Overall, they found 409 advertisements placed by 102 cancer
centers in magazines and TV networks throughout the year.

"Cancer treatments were promoted far more often than
screening services," Schenker said. "Also very little
information was provided about these services such as risks,
benefit and costs."

About 88 percent of ads talked about treatments and about 18
percent promoted cancer screenings. The majority made emotional
appeals, with 61 percent mentioning hope for survival and about
41 percent describing cancer treatment as a fight or battle.

More than a quarter of the advertisements touted the
benefits of a treatment or of screening, but only about 2
percent mentioned the risks. About 5 percent mentioned costs and
none talked about specific insurance plans.

About half the ads featured testimonials from cancer
patients and 5 percent included celebrity endorsements. Despite
a Federal Trade Commission mandate requiring it, however, only
15 percent of these ads included disclaimers, such as stating
that most patients do not experience the same results as the
person in the ad. None described the results that a typical
patient could expect.

"We would caution patients not to rely on cancer center
advertisements when making cancer treatment decisions," Schenker
said.

Her study didn't look at how the advertisements influenced
potential patients, but said that's "an important next step." It
would also be useful to look at these ads in relation to
healthcare costs and quality, she said.

There are more than 1.6 million people diagnosed with cancer
in the U.S. each year, Schenker and her colleagues note in their
report, and that number is expected to increase as the
population ages.

In an editorial published with the new study, Dr. Gregory
Abel of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston points out
that the researchers omitted Internet advertisements and they
don't specify what proportion of all the advertising consumers
encounter is made up of ads from cancer centers.

"Although the authors' findings are provocative, without
these two important sources of context, the ultimate impact of
the content of cancer center advertising remains uncertain," he
writes.

Schenker said there is more work to be done on the impact of
cancer center advertisements.

"These advertisements are hard to ignore," she said.
"Certainly I would always encourage patients to talk with their
physicians about anything they've seen."